Terminator Salvation: Review Central

[Episode29]

One small thing to those who are already calling the critics jaded and wrong...there is no reason this movie should be viewed "in context." It is a sequel that is supposed to stand on its own. John Connor is supposed to lead mankind against evil ruling machines. That's it, there will likely be little chatter on all the time travel intricacies and plots of the previous films. And as the studio, including director McG in public interviews are calling it an interview, or as McG said "What Christian did with Christopher Nolan with Batman or Daniel Craig with James Bond," then yes, it should stand on its own.

That's actually interesting, as I'd say that Salvation really doesn't stand on its own very well, if at all. Sure, it makes vague references to who Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor are, but they're so swiftly glossed-over that any newcomers are gonna be going: "Who's who in the what, now? Whoa! Explosions!".

 

[Caped Crusader]

lol wtf?

"The first "Terminator" movie I regret (I suppose) I did not see."
- Ebert

 

[Episode29]

Ebert's Review.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090519/REVIEWS/905199991/1023


Ebert has gone senile, he makes some horrible points. You can tell he's not Terminator fan.

Yeah, he's definitely a tad confused, but I wholly understand and share his central complaints.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

He called T2 fairly terrific (yeah I read the review for some reason) I don't think that he has some sort of beef against the franchise.

I can't believe I'm defending Ebert!

 

[Episode29]

He called T2 fairly terriff (yeah I read the review for some reason) I don't think that he has some sort of beef against the franchise.

I can't believe I'm defending Ebert!

Exactly, he's just a casual viewer (which this film is supposedly aiming to bring in). He did get some details wrong for sure, but his argument about the plot and lack of character detail are what's important, not whether he knows his Terminator lore.

 

[souvlaki]

This is probably my most irksome disappointment. If there's one thing they constantly lauded throughout the production, it's that this film could be performed on an empty stage and be riveting through performance and dialog alone. WTF happened to that? To make matters worse, whatever was left in, wasn't all that either. I feel like it's a total betrayal to the fan community to just blatantly misconceive in such a manner. I understand it is not uncommon, but christ, when you're trying to gain the trust, at least live up to your promises even partially.

Y'know, now that the initial excitement wore off I honestly think that is my biggest problem with the film. The frustrating thing is not that there is no character development, it's the feeling that it's supposed to be there but it's not. I really do feel like the film needed that extra 30-40 minutes. A few examples:

Spoiler

Marcus and Blair's relationship: I just didn't buy Blair being so attached to Marcus, to the point of risking her life to free him after Connor held him captive. I feel like there was a scene or two cut from the film in between when they meet and when Marcus is blown up by the land mine.

Kate Connor: I am completely convinced that people are going to walk out of the film completely unaware of the fact that Kate was pregnant. I thought Bryce Dallas Howard did a wonderful job when she was on screen, but I know for a fact that there had to be multiple scenes with her in it cut.

I hate to say it but I got the impression we wont truly see the film how it should be seen until it's released on DVD. Probably not the answer people want to hear, but it's how I sort of feel in retrospect. I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

 

[LostSon88]

Ebert:

The first "Terminator" movie I regret (I suppose) I did not see. "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991) was a fairly terrific movie, set in the future, after the nuclear holocaust of 1997. You remember that. It was about something. In it, Edward Furlong was infinitely more human as John Connor than Christian Bale is in this film. Think about that.

1. Ebert never saw T1? That's very surprising.

2. He clearly is lost when it comes to T2 seeing as how he believes it takes place post-judgment day...

Seriously, WTH?

 

[Episode29]

Y'know, now that the initial excitement wore off I honestly think that is my biggest problem with the film. The frustrating thing is not that there is no character development, it's the feeling that it's supposed to be there but it's not. I really do feel like the film needed that extra 30-40 minutes. A few examples:

Marcus and Blair's relationship: I just didn't buy Blair being so attached to Marcus, to the point of [blackout]risking her life to free him after Connor held him captive.[/blackout] I feel like there was a scene or two cut from the film in between when they meet and when Marcus is blown up by the land mine.

Kate Connor: I am completely convinced that people are going to walk out of the film completely unaware of the fact that Kate was pregnant. I thought Bryce Dallas Howard did a wonderful job when she was on screen, but I know for a fact that there had to be multiple scenes with her in it cut.

I hate to say it but I got the impression we wont truly see the film how it should be seen until it's released on DVD. Probably not the answer people want to hear, but it's how I sort of feel in retrospect. I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

LOL, yeah, I just thought she was wearing a puffy shirt for the first few scenes. Odd that no one mentioned anything about it or something.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Ebert:



1. Ebert never saw T1? That's very surprising.

2. He clearly is lost when it comes to T2 seeing as how he believes it takes place post-judgment day...

Seriously, WTH?

He's old and has huge medical problems, I think we can cut him some slack.

Dammit I just defended Ebert again!

I watched T2 before I saw the first one, I believe it was years before I watched T1 all the way through.

 

[craigdbfan]

If these 30-40 minutes don't turn out to be another lie/exaggeration that McG made up, how do we positively know that those 30-40 minutes contain scenes that actually develop these characters more?

For all we know it can just be more pretty explosions and some more CGI.

 

[Caped Crusader]

He had plenty of time to see T1

 

[Crook]

yeah.. that's why i really don't like RT. They give a review either a fresh or a rotten. There is no middle ground. That's why i prefer Metacrtic:

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/terminatorsalvation

Here they average the scores calculated based on stars, grades, etc from the critics reviews. So far TS is at 53( mixed/average) which isn't so bad if you compare it to other movies that released this year it's actually closer to the top. It is slightly under Watchmen which sits at 56 and higher than Angels & Demons(48) and Wolverine(43) . It's till early though with only 7 reviews but i feel its going to stay in that mixed/average zone.

RT was never a gauge of the film itself. I don't get why people confuse the site's intentions. It's to indicate the percentage of people that liked/disliked the film. It's the equivalent of a Yes or No question. Of course there's no middle ground, it's a completely straightforward question that has one answer.

If something is lukewarm, then it deservedly is categorized as Rotten. For the simple fact that it wasn't liked, it would obviously not count towards a Fresh rating.

If these 30-40 minutes don't turn out to be another lie/exaggeration that McG made up, how do we positively know that those 30-40 minutes contain scenes that actually develop these characters more?

For all we know it can just be more pretty explosions and some more CGI.

Well it's simple, cutting out action and cgi would be stupid for monetary reasons. It is much safer to cut out the dialog and more intimate scenes in favor of the action-oriented scenes.

 

[LostSon88]

Yep...he had 25 years to catch T1. There are NO EXCUSES.

 

[Caped Crusader]

He also gets paid to see films.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

T1 came out a month after I was hatched. I always thought that it came out before I came out.

 

[LostSon88]

And considering The Terminator was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"...

I'm just really surprised that in 25 years he's never seen it.

 

[Caped Crusader]

Packed with action and brimming with outstanding performances, "Terminator Salvation" is a worthy companion to the first two films and a notch better than part three.

- Nolan's Pop Culture Review

 

[craigdbfan]

If something is lukewarm, then it deservedly is categorized as Rotten. For the simple fact that it wasn't liked, it would obviously not count towards a Fresh rating.


Well it's simple, cutting out action and cgi would be stupid for monetary reasons. It is much safer to cut out the dialog and more intimate scenes in favor of the action-oriented scenes.

Yes. You are probably right.

Well then. Maybe the Directors Cut might be a pretty good flick assuming of course that the actors performed well.

I have a question for anyone who saw the film.

Was the acting of the main cast good enough that would give you enough of a reason to speculate that the acting in the cut scenes would be on equal par with the acting you witnessed while watching the theatrical cut?

 

[Etienne]

I still remember those badass Nike Vandals Kyle wore in T1.

 

[souvlaki]

If these 30-40 minutes don't turn out to be another lie/exaggeration that McG made up, how do we positively know that those 30-40 minutes contain scenes that actually develop these characters more?

For all we know it can just be more pretty explosions and some more CGI.

Maybe someone that read the novelization can cover that. Like I said earlier though, the main reason I think the scenes cut were more character driven is because the film feels gutted in certain parts, like you missed something. I'd be shocked if there wasn't at least one or two scenes with John and Kate that were cut.

 

[Episode29]

Yes. You are probably right.

Was the acting of the main cast good enough that would give you enough of a reason to speculate that the acting in the cut scenes would be on equal par with the acting you witnessed while watching the theatrical cut?

That's impossible to answer. I mean, everyone in the film is fine, but who knows? Often cut scenes are cut for a reason, but.... Plus, I find it hard to believe that THAT much was cut out. It's only 100 mins or so, and I can't see the studio fighting to prevent the film from being two hours or so. I mean, Angels and Demons and Star Trek both were, and this isn`t Fox we`re talking about...

I mean, they did allow a humourless, dark, dystopian war film to be made and, if they weren`t going to infere there, I can`t see them getting that vigilante about the length.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

I don't think there will be a Director's Cut. There is about 30-40 minutes of cut footage that McG wants to get on the DVD but as deleted scenes, not re-inserted back into the film.

 

[souvlaki]

Yes. You are probably right.

Well then. Maybe the Directors Cut might be a pretty good flick assuming of course that the actors performed well.

I have a question for anyone who saw the film.

Was the acting of the main cast good enough that would give you enough of a reason to speculate that the acting in the cut scenes would be on equal par with the acting you witnessed while watching the theatrical cut?

I was personally very happy with everyone in the film, except Helena Bonham Carter. Her performance was a little too over the top for me.

 

[souvlaki]

I don't think they'll be a Director's Cut. There is about 30-40 minutes of cut footage that McG wants to get on the DVD but as deleted scenes, not re-inserted back into the film.

I really hope that is not the case.

 

[Episode29]

This reminds me of the Incredible Hulk deleted scenes situation.